Re-Entrant Green Scheduling Problem of Bearing Production Shops Considering Job Reworking

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper considers Re-entrant green scheduling problem of bearing production shop considering job rework. The paper optimizes a manufacturing system taking into account carbon emissions and some reverse material flows (rework). The paper is well written and structured, the state of the art is adequately described. The initial assumptions used in the mathematical model are correctly described. In addition to a new mathematical model, a suitable optimization method has also been developed.

I have some minor remarks:

1. The conclusion should more fully reflect the results achieved in the paper;

2. To what extent the data from the table. 4 and 5 are credible, especially the Idle power?

3. Is it possible to take into account the uncertainty in the parameters of the system in future developments in the mathematical model and optimization method?;

4. In what other type of system (manufacturing, transportation etc.) is possible to use the developed matehamtical model and the optimization method?

I recommend a minor revision of the paper.

.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Re-entrant green scheduling problem of bearing production shop considering job rework” (Manuscript Number: machines-2960877). During this period of time, thank you very much for your comments on the review of our manuscript. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive, your comments have greatly helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. Your meticulous attitude has moved us deeply. Thank you again. We benefited a lot from your comments, thank you very much! We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed in response letter.

We would like to thank the Editors and anonymous Reviewers whose insightful comments and invaluable suggestions help us greatly improve the quality and the presentation of this research.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the reviewer report attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required. the authors should check for grammar, spelling and potential typographical errors in their manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Re-entrant green scheduling problem of bearing production shop considering job rework” (Manuscript Number: machines-2960877). During this period of time, thank you very much for your comments on the review of our manuscript. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive, your comments have greatly helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. Your meticulous attitude has moved us deeply. Thank you again. We benefited a lot from your comments, thank you very much! We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed in response letter.

We would like to thank the Editors and anonymous Reviewers whose insightful comments and invaluable suggestions help us greatly improve the quality and the presentation of this research.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript Number: machines-2960877-peer-review-v1

Title: Re-entrant green scheduling problem of bearing production 2 shop considering job rework

The focus of the study is on a green re-entrant scheduling optimization method for bearing production shop considering job rework. The goal is to solve various rework and repair problems caused by unqualified bearing product quality inspection. The objective function is also to minimize the makespan, total carbon emissions and the waste emissions. Finally, a multi-objective hybrid optimization algorithm based on neighborhood local search (MOOA-LS) is proposed, and then a bearing production shop is taken as the case study.

I should emphasize that there is novelty in this paper. However, it is not precise enough to have a clear explanation of the studied scheduling problem. Please see my comments below.

- To begin with, the model formulation is presented in Section 2.5. I wonder to know why the formula is not presented in a compact form where the whole formula is together and then there is a paragraph to explain the meaning of all constraints there. Any reason for it? In addition, please let readers know if the model is linear or non-linear. This would be a help to know about harness of the problem studied in this paper.

- As I know, the green scheduling problem is studied in the literature review and in detail. However, authors studied a re-entrant green scheduling to consider reworks in this paper. What is distinguishing about such a problem? I mean what it is interesting to let a reader knows about the study of greenness for the case of a re-entrant system with rework consideration.

- The authors should not use informal English. Don't, doesn't, isn't, aren't, hasn't and haven't should be replaced with do not, does not, is not, are not, has not and have not.

- Figures and tables should be reconsidered. Figure 1 is about the layout of a bearing production shop. However, I think it worth mentioning the type of this layout. If you ask me, it looks like a U-shaped layout of a production system. Accordingly, it is better to imply it in the caption of the figure.

- Likewise, the caption of Figure 2 is plain (Algorithm flow). Please mention the name of the algorithm there to keep the caption of Figure 2 stand-alone. This comment may be applied to other figures in this paper. Please recheck it to be sure all captions are properly detailed.  

- Figure 3 sounds to me a figure that can be removed from the figure sets. Do authors use this example in the rest of the paper or it is a once-used example? If they do not use this example anymore inside the paper, then it can be simply explained in a paragraph. The paper already has 25 tables and figures that is a high number.

- Are there any contribution from authors side regarding crossover and mutation operators mentioned in Section 3? If not, please make the sub-sections shorter. I believe that most readers already have general information of GA operators such as crossover and mutation.

-The pareto fronts are displayed in Figures 8 and 11 and in a 3D format. However, it is hard to recognize the dot sets in these figures are pareto fronts. Can authors please find a way to make it easier for a reader to recognize the pareto fronts in these figures? For example, authors can select couple of dots and compare them to show they are not dominating each other.

- Table 9 is a bit questionable. The transportation information is reported there as a long row. I think either this table should be removed, or it should be better designed to have an added value. I cannot say that the case study is presented in the perfect way. However, it can fulfil the need of a case study in this paper.

- Literature review of re-entrant shops with reworks is immature. As re-entrant and rework are main focus, please cite all followings for scheduling of a re-entrant shop: [a] Modeling reentrant manufacturing systems with inspection stations, JMS, vol. 15, 1996, pp. 367-378 [b] Scheduling single-armed cluster tools with reentrant wafer flows, TSM, vol. 19, 226–240 [c] Scheduling of two-machine robotic rework cells: In-process, post-process and in-line inspection scenarios, RAS, vol. 91, 2017, pp. 210–225 [d] A framework for stochastic scheduling of two-machine robotic rework cells with in-process inspection system, CIE, vol. 112, 2017, pp. 492-502

-Other typo errors:

Page 15: Table 6 and 7 --> Tables 6 and 7

The use of English is good. I am currently happy with it. However, a slight proofread can make it better.

The use of English is good. I am currently happy with it. However, a slight proofread can make it better.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Re-entrant green scheduling problem of bearing production shop considering job rework” (Manuscript Number: machines-2960877). During this period of time, thank you very much for your comments on the review of our manuscript. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive, your comments have greatly helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. Your meticulous attitude has moved us deeply. Thank you again. We benefited a lot from your comments, thank you very much! We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed in response letter.

We would like to thank the Editors and anonymous Reviewers whose insightful comments and invaluable suggestions help us greatly improve the quality and the presentation of this research.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The second revision improved the paper significantly. I suggest publishing the paper as is.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made a significant effort on reviewing their manuscript as per the reviewers' recommendations and suggestions. Therefore i would propose the acceptance of the revised manuscript in its current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

The focus of the study is on a green re-entrant scheduling optimization method for bearing production shops. I have rechecked the multi-objective hybrid optimization algorithm that is based on neighborhood local search (MOOA-LS). The formulation and the study of green scheduling for the production planning are further improved. I believe that the manuscript has a good quality now. It can be accepted as it is.